Dispatches from an Alternate Universe
Michael Ledeen had this to say this morning over at the National Review:
Did Ledeen sleep through the Clinton era? How about the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections? Has he ever watched conservative pundits on TV, listened to them on the radio, or read any of their books? Has he ever even listened to Rush Limbaugh?
The truth is, and I really don't see how anyone can dispute this, the defining feature of the Republican approach to politics over the last two decades (at least) has been the vilification of individuals. This is the core strategy behind every Republican presidential campaign in modern times. They try to villify, mock, and caricature the Democratic nominee and then turn the election into a referendum on the perceived character of the candidates. Any Republican strategist will readily admit this.
Moreover, the vilification of Democratic politicians and prominent left-leaning individuals is the primary focus of nearly all conservative punditry, from television to radio to the internet. It's Rush Limbaugh's entire shtick, the way he made a name for himself. To hear Rush and his supporters complain that his words are being taken out of context in order to smear him is just so far beyond any reasonable hypocrisy threshold that it's hard to even know what to say. This is a man who has made a living taking things other people say out of context (or just making it up) in order to smear and vilify them. He does this every day.
Leeden claims that:
It's interesting that the Dems' attack against Rush is taking place at the same time Clarence Thomas's riveting autobiography hits the bookshelves, because both illustrate one of the central features of contemporary politics: the Left's loss of intellectual coherence and confidence, and its consequent turn to the vilification of individuals. . . .It really is true that a significant percentage of conservatives have managed to construct for themselves an alternate universe in which up is down, left is right, and political reality is completely inverted. I don't know any other way of explaining how someone can argue, without feeling completely embarrassed, that the Left hates Rush Limbaugh for the "quality of his mind" or that the "vilification of individuals" by the Left has become "one of the central features of contemporary politics."
The Left hates Rush, above all—as in the case of Thomas—because of the quality of his mind and the effectiveness of his work. They know he is uniquely effective in undermining their political movement, and they desperately want him off the air. This desperation drove them to seize on a very flimsy reed with which to attack him—for it is he they are attacking, not his ideas—and they now must struggle to use that reed to stay afloat. This is what happens when a once-dominant ideology falls apart. The Left cannot explain the world, its models and its rhetoric are antiquated, and they lose most of the important debates, above all in national elections. So, in order to gain and retain political power, they must attempt to destroy the conservative icons. Yesterday, Clarence Thomas, today Rush Limbaugh. It's an ugly spectacle.
Did Ledeen sleep through the Clinton era? How about the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections? Has he ever watched conservative pundits on TV, listened to them on the radio, or read any of their books? Has he ever even listened to Rush Limbaugh?
The truth is, and I really don't see how anyone can dispute this, the defining feature of the Republican approach to politics over the last two decades (at least) has been the vilification of individuals. This is the core strategy behind every Republican presidential campaign in modern times. They try to villify, mock, and caricature the Democratic nominee and then turn the election into a referendum on the perceived character of the candidates. Any Republican strategist will readily admit this.
Moreover, the vilification of Democratic politicians and prominent left-leaning individuals is the primary focus of nearly all conservative punditry, from television to radio to the internet. It's Rush Limbaugh's entire shtick, the way he made a name for himself. To hear Rush and his supporters complain that his words are being taken out of context in order to smear him is just so far beyond any reasonable hypocrisy threshold that it's hard to even know what to say. This is a man who has made a living taking things other people say out of context (or just making it up) in order to smear and vilify them. He does this every day.
Leeden claims that:
The Left cannot explain the world, its models and its rhetoric are antiquated, and they lose most of the important debates, above all in national elections. So, in order to gain and retain political power, they must attempt to destroy the conservative icons.In Ledeen's bizarro world, it is "the Left" that is losing important debates and elections and cannot explain the world. How then to explain the fact that, in polls, the American public sides overwhelmingly with the Democrats on all major issues and that Democrats crushed Republicans in the most recent national election in 2006 (and seem poised to do so again in 2008, at least at the congressional level). Indeed the only thing that will keep the Democrats from taking over the White House next year is if Republicans can manage to sufficiently vilify the Democratic candidate. At a time when the Republican "brand" is at a historic low, when a Republican president is massively unpopular, and when the Republican platform seems to consist only of cutting taxes and starting wars, only someone who is completely delusional could possibly suggest that it is the Left that is desperately resorting to personal vilification in order to maintain power.
posted by A.L. at 11:12 AM
16 Comments:
The Republicans have become very adept at using the media to support their various political positions. Two powerful outlets for the dissemination of conservative political discourse are found in Fox television and via radio through Rush Limbaugh. Republicans have perfected the art of restating an issue in a manner that is completely divorced from reality (in some cases, outright lying) and they have an audience that will accept this perspective as their own, as if they were hypnotized. I see people who are highly educated that spout the conservative line on most serious issues of the day and it truly baffles me. It seems that they have abandoned their own facility to think independently. If it's said by Rush or on Fox tv it is fact.
In contrast, Democrats and Independents present a fragmented and uncoordinated response (I understand that to some extent this is the result of the nature of the Democratic party and its diversified composition). However, any meaningful retort to the conservative position is generally lost in translation. The Democratic response therefore becomes muted.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that the 2008 elections will be a repeat of the 2006 outcome. Although Republicans will deny reality up until the elections, I believe many people are very tired of the conservative rhetoric because they see that reality doesn't square with what they see happening in Iraq or in our county in general. And should the election go as I believe it will, I think it will signal the beginning of the end for the conservative "shock jocks." This cannot happen too soon for me.
I think Ledeen just posted another piece on what the rest of the National League East is going to have to do to cope with the quality of the Mets bullpen.
Ledeen demonstrates a hateful philosophy toward the current popular political environment that is only too readily adopted by those who disagree with him.
Such screeds represent 'Exhibit A' in the mentality of the Right. They essentially take what are their own, readily apparent weaknesses, and project them onto progressives.
This technique is exactly how Karl Rove operated (and continues to operate, methinks--anyone really believe that he is totally out of the picture, not 'advising' the Right in any way?). And it works, and (unfortunately) continues to work. In response, progressives are forced to continually and constantly defend themselves and insist that such positions are not ours at all, but are instead the reverse.
Thus, the progressive agenda is held at bay. While we marvel at the intentional obtuseness of the Right in most any matter of import, we simultaneously strive to defend ourselves to a bought and paid for media machine that could not care less. All the while our issues and stances that are of import to the progression of our nation--and indeed is emergence from the cesspool the Right has created (most especially in the past 7 years) are not heard and/or are not given the spotlight they deserve.
Meanwhile, our Nation sinks deeper into that cesspool.
Yet another example of "Rove Speak" accuse your oponent of having your fault, e.g., Butt Cyst Boy accuses real soldiers of being phony soldiers when he is the chicken-hawk that did not serve.
Yup. But Anon...you haven't noticed the Right accusing the Left of its faults? You haven't seen a winger gripe about the Left meddling with elections, failing to support the troops, spending too much money..lacking morality..God it never stops! Come on guy..you act like man that just figured out its 3 strikes and your out.
Richard
This practice of projecting by right-wing pundits has become so commonplace that one would think that they all took the same course on reverse political mumbo jumbo discourse.
Of course it's absurd, but if they're still doing it, after all these years, it must be because it's effective, right?
Or maybe it's because the reality they've created while in power is so god awful that they have spun this alternate reality, blaming the Democrats, and they've repeated it so much, it became a habit and they forgot that it was just a game and it became their new reality? Clearly, Michael has skipped off the tracks on this one.
Instead of addressing each one of their ridiculous projections in a rational, point-by-point rebuttal, I think we should ridicule them and treat them as if they've lost their minds.
Maybe talk to them like you would to a sad old uncle who has crumbs on his sweater.
Condescend and speak slowly with small words?
We should try a different response than a logical rebuttal, because it's just become an asinine kabuki dance, totally detached from reality.
I don't think we should ignore anything, but just make fun of them because, come on, they can't be serious. I mean, really. Please.
"Okay, that's right, Michael.... Don't forget to take your medicine now. There's a good boy. Go ahead and finish your hot milk, then it's off to bed with you, you little kidder! We'll have plenty of time to play "Conservatives Rule, Liberals Drool" again tomorrow, OK?"
I'm convinced that at some time since the so-called Reagan revolution got under way, neocon Republicans adopted and systematically applied the Soviets' "Big Lie" approach. The way it works is, you lie big — the bigger and more outrageous the better — and repeat constantly, endlessly, no matter what. You mustn't let any amount of having facts, statistics, science, eyewitnesses or whatever thrown back at you slow you down the least bit, much less stop you.
In application, the Soviets would blare propaganda over speakers in workplaces, schools, stores, even apartment building hallways. Russians would be told things such as that the USSR standard of living had surpassed that of most European countries and was fast closing on that of the U.S.; that when health, cultural and recreational benefits were added to wages, the average Soviet was more affluent than the average American, and on and on. Oh, and Russians invented the radio, lightbulb and sliced bread.
The Big Lie approach is predicated on the notion that, over time, people will accept what you say, sometimes even if their eyes tell them it isn't so. The gullible and those who feel insecure because they know they haven't bothered to inform themselves well, especially, can be swayed by the very fact you insist so loudly, so persistently, so self-rightously, indignantly, even emotionally, that black is white and day is night.
And, the more people who indicate they believe your Big Lies, the more others are inclined to follow along, some in the belief that if so many others accept what you're saying there must be something to it.
This approach is particularly obvious in Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly's demagoguery. You might recall how Rove did it at the beginning of 2006, citing the Democratic Party as the party bankrupt of ideas and voter appeal, and the Republican Party as a party of successful action, on the march to bigger and better things, with most Americans solidly behind it because it had great ideas and a great record of delivering what people really want.
Which, of course, is why Republicans did so well, not only in congressional elections last year, but also in state legislative and gubernatorial races.
Ledeen does a splended Big-Lie job in the nonsense quoted above.
Republicans have been almost supportive of Hillary Clinton as she seeks the Democratic nomination. If she gets it, I give the Republicans about one week to kick into demonizing mode. I then expect to see even bigger Big Lies than were used against John Kerry in '04.
Leeden claims that:
"The Left cannot explain the world, its models and its rhetoric are antiquated..."
let's see if I understand: Rationality, analysis and reality are outdated, stupidity, ignorance, and belligerence are forever.
Amen. I listen to Rush sometimes when I'm in the car. I find it useful to hear RNC talking points. He is entertaining, but you are right; he takes comments out of context on a regular basis. Everyone should listen to him complain about being taken out of context; it is hilarious. I guarantee that he will be talking about it today. And what's really funny is how the listeners call in to 'buck him up.' Then he acts humble for a few seconds. Priceless.
I'm not sure that he grasps the irony of the situation. I guess that he likes to dish it out, but he doesn't take it very well.
It really is quite a sobering thought to consider the influence that people like Michael Ledeen have in our society. I caught a snippet of one of his recent public appearances, which was broadcast on CSPAN. He is not a drooling, raving lunatic and so it's easy not to think of him as one. Only when you realize that he wants to keep this country--and the world--in a state of perpetual war (while he sits ensconced in whatever cushy sinecure it is that keeps his mind active and his bank account full) do you realize that he really should be put away so he can't hurt anybody.
The question that seems to be going around these days, in other contexts, is, "Does he really believe this stuff?" You can apply it to Michael Ledeen. If he does, he's obviously nuts. If he doesn't, then why is he lying? (My money is on the former.)
In either case, the man is dangerous. And we Americans, so caught up in our own delusions about American innocence and basic goodness, are especially vulnerable to demagoguery by people like Ledeen. Like far too many others in this unhappy time, rather than being sent off somewhere to make potholders and matchstick cathedrals, he has been encouraged to bring his particular brand of bloodthirstiness to wide notoriety in a society that has a hard time coping with insanity--and criminality--in high places.
The Right have been incredibly effective at swinging the media to the Right, all the while convincing most of the public that the media has a liberal bias.
But you know what? The Right has earned it. They worked intensely for 40 years to lay this media infrastructure. Really, it parallels the right-wing takeover of the federal courts. Most people you talk to think the Supreme Court is "liberal."
If liberals want to retake some media turf, we'll have to fight long and hard for it. Same thing with the courts.
yep, and Ledeen just chimed in on GIGLI: two big thumbs up. Predicts great things for Affleck/J-Lo combo. "They are America's sweethearts!..."
It's true. I hate Rush because I am unable to defeat his devastating intellect. For example, Rush has said that carrots are more deadly than second hand smoke. Air tight logic.
I have concluded that conservatives with a megaphone say stupid stuff like this just to make their followers feel good about themselves. After all, its those damn liberals who are evil and nasty, not us!
This seems to work best when applied to someone that has recently had a lobotomy.
People on the left (which more and more today means non-RWA personalities) are less willing to believe lies and tolerate hypocrisy, even when the lies and hypocrisy are in services of fond beliefs, and are also less willing to tolerate those who lie outrageously or are hypocrites.
The right today is the natural prey of those like Ledeen, Limbaugh and Coulter who obtain their livelihood by stoking fear and other base emotions. Where on the left will you find a large group of people who will eagerly tune in to someone who they know is lying to them?
Sorry, but wishing for a left-wing counterpart to the RWNM is self-defeating. Even if you could find someone willing to do the lying, and find the money to back them, I, and I suspect, many others, would not listen.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home